Where does the constitution give Congress power to set up national health care?

[ShootSpeeders]

It's not there and that means they don't have it - the states do. Obamacare is obviously unconstitutional as is 99% of what the feds do. The states need to grow a pair and scream about this.

 

[tyroneweaver]

The guv has emminate domain besides time to put your trust in the Savior

 

[deltex1]

It's not there and that means they don't have it - the states do. Obamacare is obviously unconstitutional as is 99% of what the feds do. The states need to grow a pair and scream about this.

Nowhere...but it does Give congress power to defund. But it does not give congressional repubs balls...they have to find theirs on their own

 

[J.E.D]

It doesn't. But it doesn't have to. Your point?

 

[TNHarley]

It's not there and that means they don't have it - the states do. Obamacare is obviously unconstitutional as is 99% of what the feds do. The states need to grow a pair and scream about this.

the fuck you say?
when they do, they get sued, investigated or suppressed.. oh and they are racisss

 

[Luddly Neddite]

Its not unconstitutional.

SCOTUS said so.

The End.

 

[Seawytch]

Since the ACA isn't anything close to "National Healthcare" (I wish), your "point" is moot.

There is that "regulate interstate commerce" thang as well as that "lay taxes" thang.

 

[Vox]

Its not unconstitutional.

SCOTUS said so.

The End.

it is definitely not the end.

even if you wish so

SCOTUS said that the individual mandate as a tax is constitutional, not the law. there are plenty of provisions which still are challenged.

 

[thereisnospoon]

It's not there and that means they don't have it - the states do. Obamacare is obviously unconstitutional as is 99% of what the feds do. The states need to grow a pair and scream about this.

There is no mention of "a right to health insurance"...Of course Dear Leader insists this right exists.

 

[thereisnospoon]

It doesn't. But it doesn't have to. Your point?

You do understand that the US Constitution is a limiting document, do you not?

 

[idb]

Someone should ask the SCOTUS.

 

[whitehall]

The law gives them the power and if the interpreter of Constitutional law, the Supreme Court, upholds it it's a done deal no matter how bad it is.

 

[rdean]

Republicans have a health care plan. They always have had it. It has two "phases":

Phase 1: Don't get sick.

Phase 2: If you get sick, die quickly.

 

[TNHarley]

Republicans have a health care plan. They always have had it. It has two "phases":

Phase 1: Don't get sick.

Phase 2: If you get sick, die quickly.

Lol u r such a parrot

 

[rdean]

Republicans have a health care plan. They always have had it. It has two "phases":

Phase 1: Don't get sick.

Phase 2: If you get sick, die quickly.

Lol u r such a parrot

But not you, thank god.

 

[hortysir]

Its not unconstitutional.

SCOTUS said so.

The End.

Since the ACA isn't anything close to "National Healthcare" (I wish), your "point" is moot.

There is that "regulate interstate commerce" thang as well as that "lay taxes" thang.

Agreed.

It's not like the FDA is opening clinics

Our government is merely taxing us,,,,,,whether for action OR inaction

Don't like it. Hope it gets repealed or defunded, but SCOTUS has spoken

 

[Vox]

The law gives them the power and if the interpreter of Constitutional law, the Supreme Court, upholds it it's a done deal no matter how bad it is.

no, it is not. the decision about "being constitutional" is about individual mandate as a tax only, not about the law ( common misconception)

BTW the widely described prohibition of imposing the commerce clause is usually overseen, but it is very important. I even think it was a trade on Roberts part.

Still, decision on individual mandate does not make the whole law constitutional only that particular part which was challenged.
There are plenty of other parts to be challenged
And they are.

 

[thereisnospoon]

Its not unconstitutional.

SCOTUS said so.

The End.

No. That is NOT what the SCOTUS ruled.
The ruling was that ACA is not commerce, Had Roberts went with the eventual minority opinion , the 4, that ACA was in fact a form of commerce, then ACA would have to be rewritten.
Because Roberts decided to go with the eventual majority opinion that ACA is a TAX, that saved the law from further Constitutional challenges.
However, because ACA has no actual Constitutional protection( Such as an Amendment) the law in its present form can be legislated out of existence. Or it can be in part gutted.

 

[Londoner]

It's not there and that means they don't have it - the states do. Obamacare is obviously unconstitutional as is 99% of what the feds do. The states need to grow a pair and scream about this.

The Constitution set-up the procedural conditions for the passage of laws - and it provides relief to those who would challenge those laws through the courts, including the recent Supreme Court Decision where the very conservative Judge Roberts was the deciding vote.

This is the problem with Conservatives. When they win, they tell us that the Constitutionally sanctioned court system has made its decision and we should move on. But when they lose, they go into full obstruction mode.

Also, the OP seems confused. The Constitution does not stipulate the actual content of every law. The founders could not anticipate every law that a free people might want to implement - so they set up procedures along with checks and balances so that free citizens could vote for representatives who would pass the laws they wanted. And in cases where there were very complex issues, like whether there is a conflict between the commerce clause and the individual mandate (which the court so found) or whether enforcement of the mandate falls under Congress's ability to tax... our Founding Fathers put their faith in the courts to adjudicate these disputes (whereas Republicans only believe in the system of procedures, laws and judicial review when it suits them. This is why it was so easy for them to pass the Patriot Act, which comes very close to take a shit on the Fourth Amendment).

It's also why they never condemned Reagan for selling weapons to Iran and funding the Contras - a violation of the Constitution that is deeper and wider than the fucking Grand Canyon. This is the problem with fan-boy hypocrisy. People don't take you seriously when you let your own party get away with murder.

 

[thereisnospoon]

Since the ACA isn't anything close to "National Healthcare" (I wish), your "point" is moot.

There is that "regulate interstate commerce" thang as well as that "lay taxes" thang.

ACA is NOT Commerce. That was the conclusion made by SCOTUS in its 5-4 vote. The majority ruled ACA is a tax.
Had the plaintiffs won the case, meaning SCOTUS ruled ACA was commerce, the law would have had to be rewritten.
BTW, the Constitution states the federal government can "lay and collect taxes". It also states the Congress can "regulate commerce with foreign nations, and among the states"..
There is no provision that permits the federal government the authority to 'create' commerce. The Tenth Amendment's "states rights" clause prohibits that.